indiana dnr division of forestry classified forest & wildlands … · 2020-02-15 · a15....

PAGE #1

Indiana DNR Division of Forestry

Classified Forest & Wildlands

1997 through 2012

Forestry Best Management Practices Monitoring Results

By: Duane A. McCoy and Jennifer Sobecki

PAGE #2

1996 through 2012

Classified Forest & Wildlands BMP Report

I. Executive Summary

II. Introduction

III. Methods

A. BMP Monitoring Objectives

B. Monitoring Team Selection

C. Site Selection

D. Monitoring Process

IV. Results

A. Overall Application and Effectiveness

B. BMP Application & Effectiveness by Section

1. Access Roads

2. Log Landings

3. Skid Trails

4. Stream Crossings

5. Riparian Management Zones

C. Overall Site Ratings

V. Discussion

VI. Recommendations

VII. Conclusions

Appendix Indiana Forestry BMP Monitoring Worksheet (2000)

PAGE #3

I. Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to quantify the application and effectiveness of forestry BMPs on Classified Forest and

Wildland (CFW) sites, based upon guidelines laid out in the Indiana Forestry BMP Field Guide. This report includes

213 CFW timber harvests monitored for Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) between November 1996 and

March 2013 ranging in size from 2.4 to 785 acres.

84.8% of the Forestry BMPs were applied as directed in the BMP guidelines, 13.1% had minor departures as defined in

the monitoring sheet (Appendix). There have been 163 major departures, and they add up to 2.01% of all practices

monitored. Of the total 213 sites monitored on CFW, 2 practices have scored “Total Negligence” for 0.05%.

Effectiveness rates are used to evaluate the success of the forestry BMPs applied to a site. The CFW effectiveness rate

for the 213 sites monitored is 90.6%. Indirect and temporary impacts to water quality were found 2.61% of the time,

indirect and prolonged impacts were found to occur 0.95% of the time, 3.23% of the time direct and temporary impacts

occurred and there were 2.62% direct and prolonged impacts to water quality.

Figure 1: Overall CFW BMP application percentages.

Meets

Requirement,

84.83%

Minor

Departure,

13.12%

Major

Departure,

2.01%

Gross

Neglect,

0.05%

Classified Forest & Wildlands BMP Application

PAGE #4

Figure 2: Overall CFW BMP effectiveness percentages.

II. Introduction

Indiana contains 4.7 million acres of forestland that provides many benefits to Indiana’s people and wildlife. 87% of

the forestland in the state is privately owned. At the end of 2012, CFW program had 705,251 acres and makes up 15%

of the total forestland in the state. CFW are generally high quality woodlands that are important for timber production,

wildlife habitat, watershed protection as well as other non-tangible benefits. This profits not only the forest owner, but

all residents. Forests are known to be the best way to reduce nonpoint source pollution (NPS) to waterways. However,

when forest soils are exposed there is opportunity for NPS pollution to occur.

Forestry BMPs are the foundation for water quality protection during forest operations. This report is a summary of the

application and effectiveness of BMPs for timber harvests conducted on 213 CFW sites from 1996-2012. In the 1996

and 1997 BMP Monitoring reports, there were more sites that were understood to be CFW sites, but this cannot be

confirmed by the records that have survived, so we have included only those sites that were confirmed to be CFW at

the time they were harvested and monitored.

BMP Monitoring is a site evaluation based on the Indiana Logging and Forestry Best Management Practices: BMP

Field Guide (BMP Field Guide) and Indiana’s Forestry BMP Monitoring Worksheet (Appendix). 58 BMP

Adequate

Protection

90.59%

Indirect and

Temporary

Impact

2.61%

Indirect and

Prolonged

Impact

0.95%

Direct and

Temporary

Impact

3.23%

Direct and

Prolonged

Impact

2.62%

Classified Forest & Wildlands BMP Effectiveness

PAGE #5

specifications are evaluated under the 5 forestry operation categories: 1) Forest access roads, 2) Log landings, 3) Skid

trails, 4) Stream crossings, and 5) Riparian management zones. Each BMP specification is rated for application of the

BMP and its effectiveness in protecting the water quality. Seven general questions are posed on the evaluation dealing

with the cause of the noted failures and successes, and records other land uses on the site that could affect water

quality.

III. Methods

A. BMP Monitoring Objectives

The objectives of BMP monitoring are: 1) to assess the effectiveness of the BMP guidelines in protecting water and soil

quality, 2) provide information on the extent of BMP implementation, past and current, 3) identify areas to focus future

program training and educational efforts to improve BMP implementation and effectiveness, 4) identify BMP

specifications which may need technical modification, 5) identify improvements needed in future monitoring efforts

and 6) to maintain certification of CFW through the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

B. Monitoring Team Selection

In the monitoring rounds from 1996 through 2004, an assortment of technical backgrounds was the basis for monitoring

team selection. Each team was led by an IDNR forester to provide technical and logistic support. Team members also

included individuals from the forest industry, the environmental community, landowners, planning and development

staff, wildlife biology, hydrology, loggers, and soil conservation. Team size was 4-5 individuals, often with team

members possessing multiple areas of expertise.

In the 2009-2012 monitoring of CFW sites, the District Forester and one or more of the BMP monitoring staff

monitored each site. If the landowner or harvesting professional came, they were included.

C. Site Selection

From 1996 through 2004 monitoring, sites were selected by their geographic position. The 1996 and 1997 rounds were

in the Lake Monroe Watershed; the 1999 round was in 5 randomly selected counties throughout the state (Ohio,

Jefferson, Clay, Martin and Stueben); and the 2000 round monitored sites in 7 of the 13 counties that have watersheds

flowing into the Great Lakes (Adams, Allen, Elkhart, Lagrange, LaPorte, Noble, Steuben). One site in 1996, 6 sites in

1997, and 5 sites in 1999 were recorded as being CFW. All others were recorded as being in another type of ownership

or their ownership type was unknown.

The 2009 round of monitoring focused on CFW. In 2008 there were approximately 374 harvests from the tracts in the

CFW Program from which the Division of Forestry had to monitor at least 10%. From the total 374 sites reported to

have been harvested in 2008, the Division monitored 40 randomly selected sites, 10.69% of the total sites harvested.

For the 2010 round of CFW monitoring, sites reported to be harvested in 2009 were randomly selected. In 2009 there

were approximately 366 harvests from the tracts in the CFW Program from which the Division of Forestry had to

monitor at least 10%. From the total 366 sites harvested in 2009, the Division monitored 45 for a 12.3% of the total

sites harvested.

PAGE #6

The 2011 round of CFW monitoring consisted of 60 sites that were randomly selected from the 519 sites that were

reported to have harvests in 2010. The 60 sites that were reviewed made up 11.6% of the CFW sites were reported to

have been harvested in 2010.

The 2012 round of monitoring involved 56 sites randomly chosen from a total of 467 sites that reported a harvest in

2011. A total of 12% of sites reported to have been harvested in 2011 were monitored in the 2012 round of monitoring.

Figure 3: 1 CFW site was monitored in 1996, 6 in 1997, 5 in 1999, 40 in 2009, 45 in 2010, 60 in 2011 and 56 in 2012.

D. Monitoring Process

BMP monitoring is based on the evaluation of each specific practice for application and effectiveness. Application is

the installation of a practice and the condition of the practice at the time of monitoring. Effectiveness is the level of

success a practice has in the prevention of pollutants entering a water body or the level of impact the pollutant is having

on the water body at the time of monitoring. It is possible to apply all of the BMPs properly and get a good score in

application, but still have soil entering a stream, which would call for a lower score in effectiveness, and the opposite

may be possible as well.

The team meets at the site to conduct the BMP monitoring on a harvest that is completed and closed. The team walks

each part of the harvest area inspects all of the access roads, log landings, skid trails, riparian management zones, and

stream crossings as directed in the Indiana BMP Monitoring Protocol. They also comment on successes and departures

from the BMP guidelines.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1996 1997 1999 2009 2010 2011 2012

# of Sites

Year

Classified Forest & Wildlands Sites

Monitored for BMPs

Begin monitoring 10% of Classified

Forest harvests annually

PAGE #7

The monitoring team also inspects adjacent and interior intermittent or larger streams. This time allows each team

member to evaluate the BMPs on the site for themselves. Once all members have inspected the harvest area, the team

comes together at the vehicle or other gathering place and each question on the BMP monitoring form is discussed until

consensus is reached.

IV. Results

A. Overall application and effectiveness

Of the 213 sites monitored, there was an 84.8% application rate with a 90.6% effectiveness rate. This means the BMPs

that were needed were correctly implemented 84.8% of the time and were effective at protecting water quality from

NPS 90.6% of the time.

More detailed definitions can be found on the FORESTRY BMP MONITORING WORKSHEET (Appendix).

B. BMP Application & Effectiveness by Section

1. Access roads

Access road BMPs were correctly applied 94% of the time. All of the access road BMP specifications employed had a

98.4% effectiveness rate.

Table 1: Application and effectiveness of BMP specifications for access roads.

Access Roads % Application % Effective

A1. Uses existing routes where appropriate 98.7 100.0

A2. Adequate buffer strip next to watercourses and sensitive areas 93.3 98.7

A3. Avoids unstable gullies, seeps, very poorly drained areas 94.2 98.1

A4. Road grades are within standards 99.4 100.0

A5. Amount of roads minimized 100.0 100.0

A6. Stream crossings minimized 99.3 99.3

A7. Road excavation minimized 98.7 100.0

A8. Excavated and fill materials placed properly 99.3 99.3

A9. Roads constructed to drain well 88.5 96.8

A10. Appropriate road stabilization, drainage and diversions installed 84.2 92.5

A11. Water diversions functioning properly 96.0 96.0

A12. Runoff diverted onto stable forest floor areas 93.3 96.3

A13. Public road drainage system maintained 100.0 99.3

A14. Public road’s drainage maintained 99.3 99.3

A15. Traffic barriers installed 65.5 99.3

Overall Access Road 94.0 98.4

The following areas of access road application needing greater attention: appropriate road stabilization, drainage and

diversions installed, 84.2% and traffic barriers installed, 65.5%. The reason for the low incidence of traffic barriers

was that many of these roads are frequently used by the landowner to access other parts of their property or their or

other’s homes. Even with relatively low application rates in the above areas, the effectiveness rates are still very high,

92.5% or higher. Therefore these departures in application appear to have a minimal impact upon the soil and water

resources of these sites.

PAGE #8

2. Log Landings

Log landing BMPs were correctly applied 92.5% of the time. All log landing BMP specifications employed were

97.3% effective at protecting the water resources of the site.

Table 2: Application and effectiveness of the BMP specifications for log landings.

Log Landings % Application % Effective

Y1. Suitable number and size of landings 97.9 100.0

Y2. Landings located outside RMZ 85.5 97.8

Y3. Landings located on stable areas 93.0 96.3

Y4. Excavation of site minimized 95.6 99.5

Y5. Landings avoid concentrating or collecting runoff 84.4 96.2

Y6. Landing’s runoff enters stable area 88.4 94.0

Y7. Proper water diversions in working order 91.0 94.4

Y8. Landing smoothed and soil stabilized 91.2 95.6

Y9. Landings free of fuel and lubricant spills and litter 98.9 98.9

Y10. Landing location suitable for equipment fueling and maintenance 98.4 99.5

Overall Log Landings 92.5 97.3

Two log landings specifications had application issues. 14.5% of sites had landings located within the RMZ. This

appeared to have a minor impact with an effectiveness of 97.8%. The avoidance of concentrating or collecting runoff

and runoff entering a stable area had application scores of 84.4%. However, the effectiveness of this specification is

96.2%, showing very little impact on the resources of the site.

3. Skid Trails

Skid trail BMPs were correctly applied 79.2% of the time. Skid trail BMP specifications employed were 87.7%

effective at protecting the water resources of the sites.

Table 3: Application and effectiveness of BMP specifications for skid trails.

Skid Trails % Application % Effective

S1. Uses existing routes were appropriate 96.6 98.1

S2. Adequate buffer strip next to water courses and sensitive areas 70.3 87.6

S3. Avoids steep and long straight grades (>20% for >200’) 88.2 95.5

S4. Avoids unstable gullies, seeps, poorly drained areas 77.8 91.5

S5. Amount of skid trails minimized 90.1 96.2

S6. Trail excavation minimized 88.7 92.5

S7. Appropriate drainage and diversions installed 36.1 59.4

S8. Water diversions in working order 77.5 84.4

S9. Runoff diverted onto stable forest floor areas 75.5 80.4

S10. Streams not used as skid trails (except for crossings) 87.7 87.6

Overall Skid Trail 79.2 87.7

Skid trails often are in rough areas with limited options for diversion installation and often there is debate as to whether

or not diversions are necessary, thus the 36.1% application rate for S7 and a 59.4% effectiveness rate, with 37 out of 73

departures having indirect and temporary impacts, 15 departures were indirect and prolonged, 9 departures direct and

temporary impacts, and 12 departures direct and prolonged impacts were found. Application scores showed that

RMZs, unstable gullies, and other sensitive areas were not adequately buffered or avoided (S2 and S4), 70.3% and

PAGE #9

77.8%, respectively. However, both of these specifications showed high levels of effectiveness with an 87.6% and

91.5%.

4. Stream Crossings

Stream crossing BMPs were correctly applied 69.9% the time. All stream crossing BMP specifications employed were

72.5% effective at protecting the water resources of the sites.

Table 4: Application and effectiveness of BMP specifications for stream crossings.

Stream Crossing % Application % Effective

X1. Number of crossings minimized 89.4 90.8

X2. Crossings minimize disturbance to the natural bed and banks 53.8 57.5

X3. Streambank approaches properly designed and stabilized 46.3 51.3

X4. Water runoff diverted from road prior to crossing 41.0 51.3

X5. Crossing as close to 90 degrees as practicable 88.8 91.3

X6. Crossing does not unduly restrict water flow 81.3 82.5

X7. Soil has not been used as fill in the stream (except culverts) 72.2 72.2

X8. Ford constructed of non erosive materials 75.7 75.7

X9. Fords have stable banks and streambeds 50.7 52.9

X10. Culverts are properly sized and installed 94.1 94.1

X11. Culverts clear of significant flow obstructions 93.8 93.8

X12. Temporary structures properly anchored 81.8 81.8

X13. Temporary structures and resulting obstructions removed 76.9 76.9

Stream Crossing 69.9 72.5

Areas of the stream-crossing category that had the lower application and effectiveness scores in Classified Forests are

minimization of disturbance to natural bed and banks (X2), proper design and stabilization of stream bank approaches

(X3), diversion of water from road prior to crossing (X4), construction of fords with non erosive materials (X7, X8)

and stable banks and streambeds of fords (X9).

Stream crossings are always dealing directly with water bodies. Therefore, even if there are no departures, there may be

some impact to the water quality, and it will almost always be a direct impact. The avoidance of stream crossings by

sale administrators and loggers is reflected in the statistic for stream crossings, as there were 78 sites (37%) that had at

least 1 stream crossing, out of 213 sites monitored. There were 27 sites that had only 1 crossing, 20 sites with 2

crossings, 12 sites with 3 crossings, 8 sites with 4 crossings, 2 sites with 5 crossings, and 3 sites with 6 crossings, 1 site

with 9 crossings, 2 site with 11 crossings, and 1 site with 14 crossings to make a total of 208 crossings on CFW sites

monitored over this 15-year period.

53 stream crossings occurred on unmapped intermittent streams. This means they were classified as intermittent

streams on the ground, but the USGS quadrangle maps did not map them as intermittent streams. There were 131

crossings on intermittent streams identified on the USGS maps. There were 24 crossings on perennial streams.

5. Riparian Management Zones

Riparian management zone (RMZ) BMPs were correctly applied 76.4% of the time. All of the RMZ BMP

specifications employed were 83.9% effective at protecting the water resources of the sites.

PAGE #10

Table 5: Application and effectiveness of BMP specifications for Riparian Management Zones.

Riparian Management Zones % Application % Effective

Z2. Perennial & large intermittent streams clear of obstructing debris 61.3 65.7

Z3. Tree tops and cutoffs placed back from water course to prevent 87.8 95.9

movement into streams during floods

Z4. RMZ free of excavated material & debris (other than above) 93.3 97.6

Z5. Less than 10% bare mineral soil exposed within RMZ (not 97.6 98.8

including crossings)

Z6. Adequate tree stocking in primary RMZ next to perennial streams 95.9 98.0

Z7. RMZ free of roads and landings (except crossing) 56.2 83.3

Z8. Water diverted from roads before entering RMZ 59.7 74.2

Z9. Water diverted onto stable areas of the forest floor 71.9 77.7

Z10. Road and trail surfaces stabilized as needed within RMZ 76.2 81.5

Z11. Ephemeral channels free of excavated material 70.6 70.0

Riparian Management Zones 76.4 83.9

Out of 213 sites, 167 had a water body of some type that had a RMZ. In specification Z2, “streams clear of obstructing

debris,” the application rate was 61.3% and the effectiveness rate was 65.7%. Of the 47 sites that had departures in

effectiveness for obstructing debris, 2 was indirect and temporary, 8 had direct and temporary impact and 37 had a

direct and prolonged impact to the water quality of the site. The nature of the debris would be prolonged unless it

could be removed or mitigated in some way; mitigation by removing the debris is the standard recommendation. Roads

and landings in the RMZ scored lower in application with a 56.2% but had 83.3% effectiveness. Seven of the sites with

departures in Z7 had indirect and temporary impact to water quality, one had indirect and prolonged impact, and 15

sites had direct and temporary impacts, while 4 sites had direct and prolonged impacts due to roads and or landings in

the RMZ. More attention is needed in the diversion of water from roads before entering the RMZ (Z8). This is

supported by the 71.9% application rate for this specification, and the effectiveness rate for Z8 was 77.7%. Road and

trail surfaces needed greater stabilization within the RMZ with a 76.2% application rate and 81.5% effectiveness rate.

Keeping sediment out of ephemeral channels (Z11) also needs more attention with an application rate of 70.6% and

effectiveness rate of 70%.

C. Yearly Monitoring Trends

Breaking down data by years can be a useful way to interpret the data. CFW sites have only been monitored on a

consistent basis since 2009, therefore it is difficult to draw any conclusions about yearly trends yet. However,

continuing to examine the data in this way will be useful for the Division of Forestry to determine if any interventions

or further education is needed to continue a high level of BMP implementation and success on CFW grounds.

Table 7. Number of CFW sites monitored by year and the application and effectiveness rates broken down by year. Number of

Sites Year Application

% Effectiveness%

n=1 1996 97.96% 97.78%

n=6 1997 80% 75.56%

n=5 1999 95.42% 97.71%

n=40 2009 82.52% 91.70%

n=45 2010 85.32% 91.71%

n=60 2011 87.86% 92.85%

n=56 2012 81.68% 86.73%

PAGE #11

Figure 4. Application and effectiveness scores by year of all CFW sites.

D. Overall Site Ratings

On the final page of the monitoring form there is an opportunity for each monitor to rank his or her overall subjective

impression of the site’s BMP application & effectiveness (Appendix). Sites can be rated from 1 to 4 or any number in

between. The ratings are decided by the following scale for application: 1=above average, 2=average, 3=poor, 4=total

negligence. The rating scale for effectiveness is as follows: 1= no visible impact, 2=slight, 3=moderate, 4=severe.

Table 6 shows the average ratings for all the sites monitored on the CFW. The overall site rating is an average of the

application and effectiveness ratings for all sites.

Table 6. The average site ratings for application, effectiveness and the overall site rating.

Overall

Application

Overall

Effectiveness

Overall Site

Rating

1.57 1.56 1.57

Monitors found overall application to be between above average and average. They found overall effectiveness to be

between no visible impact and slight impact.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1996 1997 1999 2009 2010 2011 2012

n=1 n=6 n=5 n=40 n=45 n=60 n=56

CFW Application and Effectiveness Rates by Year

Application % Effectiveness%

PAGE #12

V. Discussion

The BMP application rate on CFW sites monitored was 84.8%. Minor departures in application accounted for 13.12%,

major departures accounted for 2.01%, 2 practices were considered “total negligence” 0.05%. Forestry BMPs on CFW

sites were 90.6% effective at protecting water quality, 2.61% of practices had indirect and temporary impacts, 0.95%

had indirect and prolonged impacts, 3.23% had direct and temporary impacts, and 2.62% had direct and prolonged

impacts to water quality. The application and effectiveness scores show that there are many sound practices taking

place on CFW timber harvest sites resulting in few negative impacts to the soil and water resources. When there are

problems in either application or effectiveness, they are minor and short term.

BMPs in access roads and log landings had little to no effect upon the water quality. Roads and landings are

established with the knowledge that these are areas where the concentration and amount of repeated traffic will be

highest. During site planning and layout, managers will put roads and landings on the most stable areas outside RMZs

(93.3 and 85.5% application respectively). Sometimes site landform and characteristics force the roads to cross streams

or be in a RMZ or force landings to be within a RMZ, in which case managers are more thoughtful and careful about

how the harvest and closeout are carried out (98.7% and 97.8% effectiveness, respectively). The results of the

monitoring show the above inferences to be true by having all of effectiveness scores in both categories above 97%.

Skid trail application rate was 79.2%, but effectiveness score is 87.7% showing a difficulty in implementing some

practices within the guidelines. Skid trails can have a spectrum of disturbance levels depending on the amount of times

the equipment drives over a particular point on the ground. The main trail just off the landing would have a higher

disturbance level because all harvested logs have to be moved to the landing. An area that is traveled over only twice,

once to get to access logs and the other pulling the logs out, has a much lower level of disturbance. Also, skid trails go

to areas that other equipment cannot access. They may cross drainages, travel down or across hill slopes, or go into

areas that are wet most of the time. Therefore, most of the application and effectiveness issues of a site are from skid

trails. Also, most of the closeout practices are put in place within limited space as landforms and adjacent vegetation

will often limit the equipment’s ability to place structures where they would be most effective. This causes minor

departures in application (17.4% of skid trail application scores are minor departures) with little to no effect on water

quality. However, the 36.1% application rate on “Appropriate drainage and diversions installed” is concerning and

should be addressed with landowners and loggers through training and publications.

Stream crossings are difficult to make or utilize without impacting water quality. Any impact is either direct and

temporary or direct and prolonged. Because of this fact, the BMP guidelines emphasize the avoidance stream crossings

if possible. Out of 213 sites, only 37% (78 sites) had stream crossings. Of those 78 sites with crossings, there were a

total of 208 crossings: 131 on mapped intermittent streams, 53 on unmapped intermittent streams, 24 on perennial

streams. In the application of stream crossings, 69.9% of the practices were implemented within the guidelines, and

72.5% of the time had a no impact to water quality. As earlier mentioned, if there is an impact from stream crossings,

they can have a direct effect according to the definitions in the effectiveness scoring, 15.2% of the effectiveness scores

had a 4 (direct and temporary impacts) and 10.9% had a score of 5 (direct and prolonged impacts).

RMZs, like stream crossings, are in close proximity to water bodies. Problems often lead to direct impacts to water

quality. Problems can be averted by avoidance placing high impact infrastructure like access roads or landings in

RMZs. RMZ BMP application was 76.4% and RMZ BMP effectiveness was 83.9%. There were 167 sites with at least

one RMZ and 91 of those sites had roads or landings in them. Out of the 91 sites with roads or landings in the RMZ,

64 had no impact upon water quality. Seven sites with roads and or landings in the RMZ had an indirect and temporary

impact, one site had an indirect and prolonged impact, 15 sites had a direct and temporary impact, and 4 sites had direct

and prolonged impacts to water quality.

PAGE #13

VI. Recommendations

� Focus on areas where problems are more common, such as skid trails, RMZs, and stream crossings.

� Training for landowners and loggers needs to emphasize the utilization of water diversions.

� Continue to emphasize importance of diverting water before it concentrates on roads, landings, skid trails and

enters streams and RMZs.

� Continue providing BMP educational information and programs for loggers and resource professionals that

work on private properties.

VII. Conclusions

CFWs are privately owned and have a diverse usage. Private lands provide a great service to the citizens of this state

by producing clean water and air, and increasing biodiversity. Forestry BMPs are the means by which soil erosion from

harvesting areas is minimized and thus soil and water quality are maintained. Minimal soil erosion allows for quick

recovery of the site because the topsoil is still in place to allow for natural succession to take place. Limited

sedimentation to the water resources of the forest protects water quality. BMPs allow the forest to remain a “working”

timberland while still providing the environmental benefits that are necessary to our state.

While there are BMP applications that need improvement, the negative environmental impact is short term for most

sites. By allowing these forests to provide an income for the landowner through timber management, there is an

incentive for the landowner to keep that land in forest rather than converting to grazing, row cropping, or development;

all of which have a larger and more sustained impact on the environment. Indiana Forestry BMPs are in place to

minimize sedimentation in the waters of Indiana. The negative impacts of a timber harvest on water quality are short

term as the trees grow in that forest and the leaves continue to fall on that site, keeping the impacts to a short time

period, whereas land use conversion impacts a site for the long term.

PAGE #14

Appendix

FORESTRY BMP MONITORING WORKSHEET

(2000)

DATE INSPECTED:____________________________________TEAM:________________________

OWNER:__________________________________ PHONE: .

__________________________________________

_________________________________________

COUNTY:__________________Site #:_____________ ACRES HARVESTED:________________________

CIVIL TWP:_______________________________ USGS QUAD:___________________________________

SEC:_______TWP:_________ RANGE:________

MAJOR WATERSHED:___________________________________

DATE OF ACTIVITY:___________________________________

HARVEST EQUIPMENT USED: Dozer:__ Skidder:__ Horses:__ Other:__

TYPE OF HARVEST: Diameter limit:__ Single Tree:__ Group Selection:__ Clear Cut:__ Other:__

SITE CONDITIONS

TERRAIN: BOTTOMLAND________% RIDGES_________% SIDE SLOPES________%

SLOPE STEEPNESS: (2-6%)______ (6-12%)______ (12-20%)______ (20+%)______

LAKES PRESENT: name:___________________________shore length:_______________________________

PERENNIAL STREAMS PRESENT: name:__________________width:____________length:______________

SINKHOLES PRESENT: Yes_____ No_____ FLOWING SPRINGS PRESENT: Yes_____ No______

OPEN WATER WETLANDS PRESENT: Yes No .

FOR OFFICE USE – DO NOT COMPLETE

OPERATOR/FORESTER: (leave blank)_________________________________________________

TYPE OF OWNERSHIP: nipf:__ clf:__ industry:__ state:__ fed:__ county:__ other:__

APPLICATION EFFECTIVENESS

0--The Practice Not Needed or Applied on Site 1--Adequate Protection of Water Resources.

1--Operation Meets Requirement of Bmp 2--Indirect and Temporary Impacts on Water Resources.

2--Minor Departure from Bmp 3--Indirect and Prolonged Impacts on Water Resources.

3--Major Departure from Bmp 4--Direct and Temporary Impacts on Water Resources.

4--Gross Neglect of Bmp 5--Direct and Prolonged Impacts on Water Resources.

APPLICATION DEFINITIONS (BY EXAMPLE)

MINOR DEPARTURE: Practice not clearly needed; attempted practice but poorly applied; small potential for soil to reach streams.

MAJOR DEPARTURE: Practice clearly needed; common departures from practice; large potential for soil to reach streams.

GROSS NEGLECT: No attempt at application; total disregard for water quality; large and direct impacts.

EFFECTIVENESS DEFINITIONS (BY EXAMPLE)

ADEQUATE: Small amount of material eroded; material does not reach drainages, streams, lakes or sinkhole openings.

INDIRECT IMPACT: Erosion and delivery of material to drainages (including ephemerals) but not to intermittent or perennial streams, lakes or

sinkhole openings.

DIRECT IMPACT: Erosion and subsequent delivery of sediment to intermittent or perennial streams, lakes or sinkhole openings.

TEMPORARY IMPACT: Impacts lasting one year or less; no more than one runoff season; small amount of material involved.

PROLONGED IMPACT: Impacts lasting more than one year; large amount of material involved.

*It is possible to have a departure from BMPs and still have adequate protection.

PAGE #15

ACCESS ROADS APPLICATION (0-4)

EFFECTIVENESS (1-5)

COMMENTS

There is no access road present (If true, do not answer questions below)

A1. Uses existing routes where appropriate

A2. Adequate buffer strip next to watercourses and sensitive areas

A3. Avoids unstable gullies, seeps, very poorly drained areas

A4. Road grades are within standards

A5. Amount of roads minimized

A6. Stream crossings minimized

A7. Road excavation minimized

A8. Excavated and fill materials placed appropriately

A9. Roads constructed to drain well

A10. Appropriate road stabilization, drainage & diversions installed

X=applied water bars_____ dips/rolls_____ outslopes_____ berms cut_____ culverts____ geotextile____ rock____ seed____ mulch____

A11. Water diversions are in working order (_____% working)

Failure due to: installation, damage, location, timing, weather, other

A12. Runoff diverted onto stable forest floor areas

A13. Mud kept off public roadways

A14. Public road drainage system maintained

A15. Appropriate traffic barriers installed


0--The Practice Not Applicable 1--Adequate Protection of Water Resources.

1--Operation Meets Requirement of Bmp 2--Indirect and Temporary Impacts on Water Resources





MINOR DEPARTURE: Practice not clearly needed; attempted practice but poorly applied; small potential for soil to reach streams

MAJOR DEPARTURE: Practice clearly needed; common departures from practice; large potential for soil to reach streams

GROSS NEGLECT: No attempt at application; total disregard for water quality; large and direct impacts



INDIRECT IMPACT: Erosion and delivery of material to drainages (including ephemerals) but not to intermittent or perennial streams, lakes or sinkhole openings.





PAGE #16

LOG LANDINGS

APPLICATION (0-4)

EFFECTIVENESS (1-5)

COMMENTS

Y1. Suitable number and size of landings

Y2. Landings located outside RMZ

Y3. Landings located on stable areas

Y4. Excavation of site minimized

Y5. Landings avoid concentrating or collecting runoff

Y6. Landing's runoff enters stable area

Y7. Proper water diversions in working order

Y8. Landing smoothed and soil stabilized

Y9. Landings free of fuel and lubricant spills and litter

Y10. Landing location suitable for equipment fueling and

maintenance

Number of log landings Size: (acres) .


0--The Practice Not Applicable 1--Adequate Protection of Water Resources.















*It is possible to have a departure from BMP’s and still have adequate protection.

PAGE #17

SKID TRAILS

APPLICATION (0-4)

EFFECTIVENESS (1-5)

COMMENTS

S1. Uses existing routes where appropriate

S2. Adequate buffer strip next to watercourses & sensitive areas

S3. Avoids steep and long straight grades (>20% for >200')

S4. Avoids unstable gullies, seeps, poorly drained areas

S5. Amount of skid trails minimized

S6. Trail excavation minimized

S7. Appropriate drainage and diversions installed

X= applied water bars____ outslopes____ dips/rolls____ berms cut____ culverts____ seed____ mulch____ rock____ other____

S8. Water diversions in working order (_____% working)

Failure due to:installation, damage, location, timing, weather, other

S9. Runoff diverted onto stable forest floor areas

S10. Streams not used as skid trails (except crossings)

Types of streams involved and length of disturbance: perennial , mapped intermittent .

Unmapped intermittent , ephemeral .


















PAGE #18

STREAM CROSSINGS

APPLICATION (0-4)

EFFECTIVENESS (1-5)

COMMENTS

X1. Number of crossings minimized

X2. Crossings minimize disturbance to the natural bed &

banks

X3. Streambank approaches properly designed and stabilized

X4. Water runoff diverted from road prior to crossing

X5. Crossing as close to 90 degree angle as practicable

X6. Crossing does not unduly restrict water flow

X7. Soil has not been used as fill in the stream (except culverts)

X8. Ford constructed of non erosive materials that will not degrade water quality

X9. Fords have stable banks and streambed

X10. Culverts are properly sized and installed

X11. Culverts clear of significant flow obstructions

X12. Temporary structures properly anchored

X13. Temporary structures and resulting obstructions

removed

Number of perennial crossings widths .

Number of intermittent crossings widths Number of unmapped intermittents

widths .


















PAGE #19

RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT ZONES

APPLICATION (0-4)

EFFECTIVENESS (1-5)

COMMENTS

Z1. RMZ present on this site include: _____ lakes, ______ rivers, _____ perennial streams, ______ intermittent streams, _____ sinkhole

openings (specify), _____ open water wetlands, _____ unmapped intermittent streams

Z2. Perennial & large intermittent streams

clear of obstructing logging debris

Z3. Logging debris placed back from watercourse to prevent movement into streams during floods

Z4. RMZ free of piled slash, debris and fill

Z5. Less than 10% bare mineral soil scattered within RMZ - not including crossing

Z6. Adequate tree stocking in primary RMZ next to perennial streams

Z7. RMZ free of roads and landings (except crossings) Were roads pre-existing? ________

Z8. Water diverted from roads before entering RMZ

Z9. Water diverted onto stable areas of the forest floor

Z10. Road and trail surfaces stabilized as needed within RMZ

Z11. Ephemeral channels free of excavated material


















1996-2006 State Forest Property BMP Monitoring Report

of 21

SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS AND SUMMARY

1) WHAT WENT RIGHT ON THIS SITE? (SUMMARIZE HIGHLIGHTS)

2) WHAT WENT WRONG ON THIS SITE? (SUMMARIZE PROBLEMS)

3) HAVE OTHER ACTIVITIES OCCURRED ON THIS SITE THAT POTENTIALLY IMPACT WATER QUALITY? (E.G. ATV

use, vehicle traffic, grazing, etc.)

If so, please explain.

4) WERE TRAFFIC BARRIERS IN PLACE TO PREVENT TRESPASS DAMAGE? .

WHAT KIND OF TRESPASS DAMAGE WAS OBSERVED?

5) ARE THERE MITIGATING ACTIVITIES THAT SHOULD TAKE PLACE ON THIS SITE OR IS

CORRECTIVE ACTION ALREADY BEING TAKEN.

6) -HAS THE SALE ADMINISTRATOR RECEIVED BMP TRAINING? Yes_____ No Unknown .

- HAS THE OPERATOR (LOGGER) RECEIVED ANY BMP TRAINING? Yes_____ No Unknown .

- WAS THE SALE ADMINISTERED BY A FORESTER? Yes_____ No Unknown .

- IS THE LANDOWNER AWARE OF BMPs? Yes_____ No Unknown .

7) GIVE THIS SITE AN OVERALL RATING OF 1-8 COMBINING APPLICATION OF BMPs WITH IMPACT TO WATER

QUALITY.

RATE THIS SITE FROM 1-4 FOR THE OVERALL APPLICATION OF BMPs _______

1=above average 2=average 3=poor 4=total negligence

RATE THIS SITE FROM 1-4 FOR ITS OVERALL IMPACT TO WATER QUALITY _______

1= no visible impact 2=slight 3=moderate 4=severe

SITE RATING /2=_______

Note: These numbers do no necessarily need to directly reflect the worksheet ratings for application or effectiveness

1996-2006 State Forest Property BMP Monitoring Report

of 21

Field Guide Cross Reference On this page is each question in the monitoring sheet and the corresponding pages on the subject in the BMP Field Guide. ACCESS Roads == Section II, pages 8-16 A1 == pages 4, 8, 10 A2 == pages 8, 9, 12, Section V page 32, 33, Table 4 page 34, 35 A3 == page 8 A4 == page 8 A5 == page 10 A6 == page 8 and Section IV page 24 – 30 A7 == pages 8, 10 A8 == pages 10, 12, 24, 29 A9 == pages 8, 10, Table 1 page 11, 12 A10 = pages 8, 10 Table 1 page 11, 12, 14, 15, Table 2 page 21, 22 X=Applied == (waterbars, pages 21-22), (dips/rolls, pages 21-22), (outslopes, Glossary), (berms cut, Glossary),

(culverts, pages 27-28), (geotextile, Glossary), (rock, page 10), (seed, Appendix A), (mulch, Appendix A). A11 = pages 14, 15, Table 1 page 11, 18, Table 2 page 21 A12 = page 10 A13 = pages 13, 14 A14 = page 14

LOG LANDINGS == Section IV, pages 36-40 Y1 == pages 36, 39 Y2 == Table 4 page 34, 36 Y3 == page 36 Y4 == page 38 Y5 == pages 36, 38-40 Y6 == pages 38-40 Y7 == pages 38-40 Y8 == pages 38-40 Y9 == pages 39, 40 Y10 = page 39 SKID TRAILS == Section III, pages 18-22 S1 == pages 4, 18 S2 == pages 18, 20, Section V pages 32-35 S3 == page 18 S4 == page 18 S5 == page 18 S6 == page 18 S7 == Table 1 page 11, pages 18-20, Table 2 page 21, 22, 27, 28

X=Applied == (waterbars, pages 21-22), (dips/rolls, pages 21-22), (outslopes, Glossary), (berms cut, Glossary), (culverts, pages 27-28), (geotextile, Glossary), (rock, page 10), (seed, Appendix A), (mulch, Appendix A).

S8 == Table 1 page 11, pages 14, 15, 20 Table 2 page 21 S9 == page 20 S10 = pages 18-20, Section IV pages 24-30 Types of Streams == page 24, Glossary, and Section V pages 32-35

STREAM CROSSINGS == Section IV, pages 24-30 X1 == page 24 X2 == page 24 X3 == pages 24, 25 X4 == pages 24, 25 X5 == page 24 X6 == pages 24-26, 28 X7 == pages 24, 29 X8 == pages 24, 29 X9 == pages 24, 25, 29 X10 = pages 25, 27, Table 3 page 28 X11 = pages 24, 27, 28 X12 = pages 25, 26 X13 = pages 25-29 RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT ZONES == Section V, pages 32-35 Z1 == pages 32, 34, Glossary Z2 == page 33 Z3 == pages 32-34 Z4 == pages 32-34 Z5 == pages 32-34 Z6 == pages 32-34 Z7 == pages 32, 34 Z8 == pages 33, 34 Z9 == pages 32-34 Z10 = pages 33, 34 Z11 = page 35

indiana dnr division of forestry classified forest & wildlands … · 2020-02-15 · a15....

Documents